Village

You sound like you dont trust the IPCC time machine. I thought you had fallen for that one hook line and sinker years ago! LOL

You missed the point again Dev. The point is that BW was maintaining that climate modelling can predict the seasons! Thats the nonsense of it all because he shouldnt need a computer and climate model. it should be obvious.

ROFLMAO@you Any idiot can say they can predict the climate hundreds of years forth. And saying white is white isnt a prediction. So far all the climate models have been wrong to date (thats why the IPCC downgraded their estimate of average global temps 100 years forth) and there is no hope for the future because the approach is wrong. Thats why they have to keep updating and fiddling because the new real data is always different from that previously input. Making out you can do it and nobody else can may wash with some but it doesnt wash with me. You have come with no prediction of climate whatsoever, but you get a digestive biscuit for being a cheeky chump.

Yeah, because the chimps who were in power last bought the daft video and force fed it as scientific fact to our school kids! Is it no wonder this generation leave school knowing nothing.

You get nothing for predicting its warmer in June than December, theres no skill in that and if you need to produce a computer programe to show that then you have digressed even further. But if you really believe that computers can predict the future climate to any degree of accuracy you can create a model that will do precisely that. Problem is ....you wont be able to because nobody has managed it to date and I am sure it will never happen using a serial computer and current approach from outside inwards as I stated earlier. Its no good pretending that computer synthetics can do this with any degree of accuracy. If computer models could have done I would be on a 50 million pound yacht in the Mediteranean with a bunch of beautiful women and all my mates partying each day away at your and everyone elses expence.

I think you are going off on a tangent with this. As you said earlier...you have digressed.One doesnt need a computer program and in depth mathematics to show that it is on average much warmer on our lattitude in June than December. However, a dumb computer program will never be able to predict in December the next day that snow will fall in June. If you want to believe that you can predict this with the aid of a computer model, then I will offer you 500 pounds to say that you havent a chance in hell of being right. Further, drawing a comparisson with totally predictable heavenly bodies and an unpredictable climate I think is not a true representation of the the glaringly obvious differences. Do you really believe the climate models for 100 years forth are as accurate as the clockwork of the heavens? Are you sure that you have thought through your stance on this properly?

I am sure we have seasons because we dont live at the equator, this has nothing to do with chaos theory. What is your point Dev?

You missunderstand my point. My point was that they are completely wasting their time going about the process in that way they do. One cant create a synthetic mathematical model to predict future conditions in the real world from the inside out. Seeing as chaos does exist in the real world then they dont have a hope in hell.

I am pleased you didnt try to explain in your own words how you think the mathematics of the models work. I understand why interpolating data renders the whole procedure useless. I have worked with programers for twenty years here in the city to produce mathematical models. These models use the same techniques and formula and we still cannot predict where the financial markets at a future date. At least we agree on one thing....the models are a waste of time for long term predictions. No wonder the Met Office gave up trying.

The future cannot be created because you say so.You may missunderstand how synthetic modelling works, but quite how you can arrive at the conclussion that we can recreate the real world in the future fails me. I think you are missunderstanding the way which models are created. Models simply make a poor copy from the outside inwards. In practice they dont reproduce reality so all we do is tweak the variables after the event to try to reproduce a copy of the past. Programers then use that same copy to pretend we can predict the future world. And of course it is wrong and so they go away again and fiddle with the input over and over again. Its the wrong approach. We dont have and cant demonstrate that we can produce the future in any way shape or form. Are you nuts? can you show a mathematical statement to prove that the real world is reality? This is the same IPCC which simply downgraded average global temperatures 100 years forth by 2C ? In a pen stroke! LOL

That is my point precisely. Since the difference in future climate terms between 1c and 5c is literally worlds appart. Its therefore meaningless.

I am interested in the way in which the process of climate prediction for the longer term is currently based purely with synthetics and how it is that people believe in a model a an accurate representation of the future when clearly it can never be. Unless one can artificially model the changes and interactions of each atom (which currently is absolutely beyond our reach) one hasnt a hope in hell of coming with any meaningful representation of the future of world climate. Even if one could simulate the behaviour of each atom and its relative charge and electron count each time one runs the synthetics one would get a different result.

I am still very sceptical that we will see any change in the very poor level of long term climate predictions. The sheer time scale and the billions upon billions of permutations for the future which are thrown up with just the smallest alteration of even one variable makes it almost impossible to be even close.

Hey Jethro, yeah would love to see it. I really think that this plays a tremendous role with rainfall. Got loads of ideas and thoughts. To give you a flavour of where I am coming from on this. I learned from the Health service stats fifteen years ago that they get inundated with people with breathing problems during thundery weather. They used to blame a buildup of polution. But as you and I and meteorologists know only too well this will only really become a problem under intense atmospheric inversions. this of course is quite the opposite to what one looks for in thundery conditions where much of the depth of the atmosphere becomes unstable. This set me off thinking. I believe that the charge at the base of the cloud by inducing an opposite charge at the surface actually electrostatically charges dust, pollen and other airborn particles so that they are repelled by the Earth. These particles wont stick to the ground and are encouraged to become airborne. With so many particles airborne its this that causes the asthma and breathing problems. I dont think it stops there....these particles get caught up in the updraughts and this again is another reason for the ease at which rain can condense out from seemingly harmless looking cumulus during thundery weather. It also provides a possible answer as to why some conditions of extremely unstable airmasses never produce lightning but on other days electrical discharges are flashing all over the place. I really do believe that the magnetospheric variation give rise to more or less airborne charged particulates in any particular location which play their part as condensation nuclie. I am pretty certain that the intensity of cloud charge is primarily driven by the solar wind conditions and the Earth's variable magnetosphere at any one location and at any one particular time. Long term variability paterns can provide enhansed rainfall or the reverse at the surface. This alters climate. Love to see what you can dig up. Cheers, Vill.

Does anyone have any charts that show the historic levels of global volcanic activity right up to date? is it true that we live in relatively peaceful volcanic times?

It would be absolutely cold if the sun switched off. So which is the greatest driver of climate? whats your point?

There is something else that is happening to our planet which very little is known about and which could be having some effect on the climate in a subtle way. It's a major change which started in earnest during the latter part of the last century and that is Pole reversal. The magnetosphere of our planet is already well into the process of change. During this change, where the north and south polarity reverse, all of life on this planet could become exposed by dangerous amounts of high energy gama radiation which will reach the Earth's surface. Its not clear yet where and when or what the exposure will be, but it is vitally important that science spends more time on this issue. Billions of dollars in funding have been diverted to study our star purely because of the threat from the short wave energy of the spectrum. As we know, there does seem to be a link between cosmic radiation and clouds here on Earth and so much more needs to be done to study the effects of how our atmosphere may change when exposure to radiation alters. The aviation industry has moved fast in recent years to change to satelite navigation systems to avoid the problems which have been caused with the erratic movement of the Magnetic North Pole. During the last decade the Magnetic North Pole was darting around all over the place and causing a huge headache for navigation I really hope that we do see much more funding in this area for research. I have held my own theory about climate change for a decade now, but cant get enough new reports to help me determine if I am right. I beleive that climate change is driven by the long term variability of rainfall. The variability in any particular region is subtle, however, over many years this shows itself and will change the climate in a region. Rainfall patern follows general rules due to the Hadley cell synoptic set. However, further north I believe that the subtle changes of the distribution and positioning of High pressure cells determine where atmospheric moisture will be enhanced or rarified. I also believe that this affects the density or rarification of condensation nuclie which are important to the production and volume of precip in any particular locality. High Pressure distribution in the mid and high latitudes is also governed by the temperature of the Stratosphere which changes due to Solar input variability. So you see the Solar input I believe has been greatly underestimated until now because scientists have assumed for too long that the Infra-red part of the spectrum is the main driver of climate. My view is that the solar winds and the high energy Gamma end of the spectrum is an equally important driver for the reasons I have stated above. Watch out for new developments in this area. I am sure there will be some surprises to come very soon which could very well turn current theory on its head and bury the theory that man's tiny contribution to the few parts per million variance in CO2 at the bottom of the can where I think it should be.

You say; there is not much point in continuing this discussion with you as you state above ; you know everything about the research on clouds already. I will wait to see what the research turns up before I make my mind up. Its a shame that we cant continue to discuss subjects that are ongoing.

Beware of the ensemble runs. The synthetic charts maybe fun to look at but they dont represent the future beyond three days. The Met Office know this all too well which is why they have stopped their long range forecasts. After five days they are usually completely wrong. The computer is a great aid for mundane mathematics but it cannot represent the real world. We have at least another two months of winter yet. The coldest period is to come.

Its a good question. Sea level data on rates of change are extremely fragmented and generally pieced together or non existant. However there are pretty good records dating back a hundred years in many places and before then records can be obtained from other ways. In my region it is very well documented and it is understood that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing. The rates of rise seen this century are really unchanged to those of the last century. The North Sea is not a closed system and so the rate rise should be representative widely. This being the case, it makes me wonder why it is that we are not seeing a rate rise? In particular whaen some are predicting that with Polar ice melt we can expect increases across the globe. So where is the data demonstrating that this is taking place? IIts not noted to be the case in this country and we should be the one place which feels it first being an island with the highest range of tides in the world. It begs the question? What does this say about the Climate change theory that we are under threat from the melting ice? It tells me that the theory is wrong. It tells me that either the rates of ice melt are not what they are reported to be, or that there is greater ice build up elsewhere, or that the atmosphere is more saturated or that it is a combination of factors. I personally prescribe to the third scenario. Thats why I dont buy it that we are going to be flooded out as sea levels rappidly rise. We would have seen it already...but its not happening. We know that it is generally eversoslightly more cloudy now ( i can see this in the CET data) and we also have reports that the Antarctica ice sheet is gaining due to increased precip. Therefore I conclude that the claims that we will be inundated as the oceans rise are currently baseless and simply scaremongering.

Sea levels are rising at the same rate throughout the world. The sea level cant rise more than elsewhere unless it is a closed system, ie a landlocked sea. The only places where they are not rising is where geologically the techtonic movements are forcing the land higher than the sea level rate rise.

I dont know what it is that you are questioning? Here is a link about Dunwich which backs up the fact that sea levels have been rising for hundreds of years. http://www.smithsoni...o-the-Seas.html The rate of change in recent times is not accelerating. I worked on a few projects regarding coastal flooding in the region and the Rivers Authority who used to be in charge of sea defences in the region...now its DEFRA were very clear with their surveys which showed a 3mm rise in sea level (unchanged in rise rate for past 100 years or since trusted records) a 3mm drop in land hight annually which was a combination of techtonic plate movement in the region and a small isostatic rebound rate still occuring since the last ice age. The sum total was an apparent sea level rise of +6mm yearly and therefore a sea coastal defence of six meters above AOD was imposed on the region befor any new development being granted. It was the same hight imposed after the floods of 1953. Again this demonstrtates at how confident the Authority is that the rise rate is the same. Otherwise they would have recomended an increased protection of above +6m AOD. AOD at the time (seven years ago) awas and still is taken from the average high tide on the Continental shelf off the south west approaches of Britain. Erosion is happening, but its not the reason why the ruins are under the sea surface now. 6mm annual rise of sea levels means .6metres every century which means that 800 years ago the sea surface was six metres lower. That is a real rise of 3 metres for the sea level taking out the geological changes. So regardless of erosion, the whole region is six meters down beneath the waves today.

The evidence is in the news for all to whitness. Russia is the main supplier of natural gas for Europe. The European hub is in The Netherlands. The pipeline crosses the continent from east to west. The Russians have turned off the supply to a few east european countries in the last few years at times of extreme cold simply because of political issues....they can do it to Europe....its not a secret...its not a conspiracy...its common sense to understand that the west needs to be free from this type of behaviour. The same is true with oil supplies. Our North Sea supplies will run out soon....we will then be depending on the middle east for our reserves....the news is full of stories of political unrest in almost all of the oil producing countries in the middle east. Its a complete no brainer that our government has to encourage all of us to use alternative energy sources to oil and gas. Thats what they have been doing. The west has been encouraging closed nations to free up their peoples and free up their markets for decades. The west cannot now be seen to do the opposite and restrict free markets by banning its own people from buying oil from other countries. So it must encourage the change in another way....along comes a wonderful theory about saving the planet...great...perfect...the government backed it with billions regardless of whether it was a fact or not because it does the job. Now every Joe Bloggs in the country feels guilty and wants to make the change to alternative energy by his own free will. Great...the western governments are now protecting our energy supplies by increasing our own alternative supplies and Joe Bloggs is paying for it too! Brilliant. What more evidence does one need to be convinced? Its all about securing energy for the west so that we can continue to grow without being held to ransom. Its all in the news ....all of it...its not a conspiracy...its so obvious it slaps one in the face. Things dont just happen...there is always a reason for everything. Just dont expect the western governments to spell it all out in the papers to make it easy for some to grasp. They wont do that because it will upset the apple cart.

Thankyou for your support,